Hi, just some factual details need correcting on this page. My father was born on July 3,1925 and died at Sir Charles Gairdiner Hospital on October 23 ,2011. (not at home on Oct 24). Cheers, Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.141.145 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I apologise for the previous inaccuracies. IgnorantArmies 03:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I think you need to have more information on Mohommad Arkram. I know this is a fairly new page but you should consider adding more info or a redirect may be put in place. The Title is also VERY LONG. Do not take this as an insult. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Hello! IgnorantArmies, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Hiaw777(Talk) 07:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi :) Thanks for taking the time to write here, but I'm afraid I'll have to politely disregard your message. The title derives from the need to disambiguate between this cricketer and this cricketer, both of whom share the same nationality, profession, and even year of birth. Also, articles are not stubs just because they are short in length. Per Wikipedia:Stub, a stub is "an article containing only one or a few sentences of text that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion". Unfortunately, very little information is available on either player—no further expansion is possible. IgnorantArmies 09:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You added George as a middle name for the Bert Gook article a while back. Just wondering what your source was for the middle name. I have found a cemetery record for an Albert Henry Gook who fits the age of the footballer but just wanted to check in case it was wrong. Hack (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I honestly haven't the faintest idea what source I was using, but your cemetery source fits nicely with the 1914–1915 birth date, so I think "Albert Henry" is probably correct, and I've added this. (Probably not the best source, but it fits in with everything else). IgnorantArmies 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I ask because I've had some issues with reliability of WAFL records in the past. As it happens, the middle name Henry is confirmed in a newspaper report about his divorce. Hack (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Knighthoods take effect from the point they are gazetted, not on the date of investiture. Nalder's knighthood appeared in the London Gazette in June 1974.[2] It looks like Sir Crawford travelled to London and personally received the accolade from the Queen on 11 March 1975.[3]Hack (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I've changed the wording accordingly. (Also, I think a table of contents balances the article a bit more, probably should have mentioned that in an edit summary). IgnorantArmies 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

but I really struggle still with articles where the coords get tangled up in the right hand upper part of my view with categories (I have cats on top of my pages)... but i have seen some arts where somehow coords have anice box to sit in along the top... sats 09:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I sort of know what you're talking about, I'm sure I've seen that somewhere. Can't help you though. IgnorantArmies 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

if i find one again (I suspect there are few in the freopedia stub collection) I'll leave you a link - they look cool sats 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, an image you uploaded to Commons of Tom Wills is titled as a painting, when it is in fact a coloured photograph. Pretty small thing to squabble about, but is it possible to correct the file name? - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to move/re-title images on Commons – I think you need an administrator, so I can't help you there. It's a still a photograph of a painting, so the title isn't too misleading. Great work on the article, by the way, and sorry for the late response. IgnorantArmies 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Edit: my 21st-century eyes are apparently bad at distinguishing between the two. IgnorantArmies 15:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that. Tommy's article really is a monumental task, I'm being pretty delicate about it. He is principally a cricketer, which I (shamefully as an Australian) don't know much about, so I'm not touching that part of his life. Australian cricket has many great articles, like The Don, so hopefully some editors behind those articles will have input on Tom. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IgnorantArmies. Please check your email – you've got mail!It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

RE: Please be aware that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." per WP:EVASION. You might decide we should keep a blocked editor's change on its merits, but please not that User:Europefan is an extremely persistent sockpuppeteer who should be discouraged from ongoing violations of Wikipedia policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that policy, and apologies if my edit summary was a bit abrupt. In my opinion, contributions should always be judged solely on their merit, not on the history of the editor concerned. Even if they call you a stalker :)IgnorantArmies 04:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit re William Galloway. I copied the info over into the William McNaughton Galloway article ("Public life" section). I don't know if you have time to review it or add to it, but thought I would point it out in case your source material had anything more to say about him. Kerry (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good pick-up, and nice work on the article. The book only had three or four lines on him, and nothing more about the by-election other than that he contested it. Also neglected to mention that he was mayor of Brisbane. Seems like an interesting guy, anyway. Thanks for the note, IgnorantArmies 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 10:01, 29 March 2014‎ Andreas11213 (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,691 bytes) (-76)‎ . . (The picture is not "flattering", and is side on. The other picture is more direct and fits better in the info box.) (undo | thank)

Well, I suppose I can now say I have consensus if it needs to be restored some time in the future! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, wouldn't have thought that would be controversial. I guess they're both decent photos anyway, not much point fighting an IP over it. IgnorantArmies 05:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand - and it seems you don't understand me, either. (It's a good thing we agree with each other, isn't it!)

In brief summary: There was a status quo; Andreas didn't like it and changed things; Like everyone (except Andreas), the IP didn't like Andreas's change; The IP came up with a good compromise; You sort of restored to the status quo pre-Andreas, but using the IPs improvements.

It's Andreas, not the IP, who caused the problem. The IP, and you, solved the problem.

(BTW: The consensus I'm referring to is you, me, and the IP.)

Sorry to be unclear - I hope the above is clearer. If not, well ... I suggest/recommend archiving or deleting the topic - truly, it's really not worthy of any more of anyone's time. Meanwhile ... "Actually, I agree with you." Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I was trying to figure out the apparent My Kitchen Rules reference as well :) I thought the front-on image was the status quo, and that the second (120.144...) IP would revert straight back to it, blah blah blah (not good reasoning on my part, given he hasn't even been GG for two weeks, so how could that photo be the status quo?). Anyway, you're right – not worth our time. Cheers, IgnorantArmies 11:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not complaining - just confused. "standardise formatting" - What are you standardising with what? It appears to me you have removed the comma; it's my understanding and experience that the inclusion of the comma is "the standard". (To the extent that I expended the effort to expand the functionality of the template to include the comma, in response to complaints about the absence of the comma / requests for an inclusion-of-a-comma functionality.)
Hence, I've reinserted the comma, (but with the reservation of being seen to be a pedant aka a WP:Dick - a label I'm not actively seeking).
Again, we seem to be discussing something not worthy of any effort from either of us. (I'm sure a 6 month holiday in a sunny climate at somebody-else's-expense would "resolve" my concerns. And probably your's too?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My edit summary was probably a touch misleading – maybe I meant having the same thing in the infobox and the lead? The whole comma vs. no-comma situation is pretty wishy-washy (at least on WP – I'm sure style guides have something to say on it) e.g., Isaac Isaacs, Robert Menzies, Ninian Stephen. I definitely prefer the commaless version, but I usually leave it at the status quo. I admit that sometimes I'm a bit pedantic and try to take out the commas, but that's harder to do on the high profile articles :) We really should decide on a standard, even if it's just on governors-generals or Australian politicians or something like that. Jeffery, Bryce, and Cosgrove have all got the commas in, so I reckon feel free to do the same with all the other ones (exciting work, I know). It's 35 or something in Perth today, so if you've got some rain I'd be happy to swap).IgnorantArmies 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those encouraging words. It's nice to know somebody else is interested. I am reaching the less interesting and less important teams now, but I'll go on a little longer. Thanks also for your list, which is a great help. (By the way, you can shorten it by at least two: Khulna and Chittagong were scheduled to play, but didn't.) I've also been thinking about the Karachi and Lahore teams; I have something in mind, but there's a lot of time involved. After I finish with teams I will probably go on to some of the more prominent and interesting non-Test players. I've enjoyed finding out about people like Zafar Altaf, Ahad Khan, Faqir Aizazuddin and M.A. Latif. Sammyrice (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks for taking the time to provide feedback but I see his personal life as relevant, especially with an event as big as his marriage. I have put it under 'Personal Life' at the bottom so it is separate from his cricket career. There is precendent to add personal details of a sportsperson for the public's knowledge. See the bottom of Matthew Pavlich's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimzteo (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If it hadn't had the accompanying edit comment, I would possibly have been tolerant of your edit. But in conjunction with "As an reasonably uninvolved editor, I think the edit itself is fine, so I'm gonna go head and restore it. Revert if necessary", I'm actually supportive, and see zero need for reversion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. As I said on the talkpage, I'm reasonably familiar with Andreas' editing history, but try to keep a cool head. IgnorantArmies 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

<Belly laugh> To be consistent with Andreas's expectations of 50-year-old-quotes (actually - much more than 50 years old), quite clearly, "you're a better man than I, Gunga Din"! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute it but it's a pity we can't give equal ground to linking of profession. Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I just figured they're all such everyday professions that there wasn't any point in linking them, but I'm not fussed if you want to revert it (or delink the last one). Cheers, IgnorantArmies 05:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK specifically says not to link common occupations. So I accept that they indeed shouldn't be linked. I don't want to de-link oral and maxillofacial surgery because a lot of people won't know what maxillofacial refers to. Good article though, one of the great things about wikipedia! Lynham solely gets a link, oh well. Timeshift (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being so nice about my pedantry, and glad we got an easy fix. I am serious about taking that article to WP:GAN. Split a few of the multi-clause sentences (I love 'em, but the style gurus are less enthusiastic), and it should walk through.

Thanks for the kind words, @BrownHairedGirl:, and one of the most thorough reviews I've had at DYK (that's a good thing, by the way!). It's nice to get a decent article out there on a topic without much written on it, and I guess I'll put taking this to GAN on my to-do list :) Good luck with whatever you're working at the moment, IgnorantArmies 11:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For creating well-rounded, comprehensively-researched, neutrally-balanced, encyclopedic articles of an unusually high scholarly standard ... and for doing so without any trace of the prima donna behaviour which sometimes accompanies good writing on Wikiedia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I just need your help in sorting out some statments that this user(User:Showmethedoor) continously adds to the Azad Kashmir article by using statements that have already been mentioned in the second introductory paragraph. He keeps on adding disputed to the Pakistani areas but proudly writes Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir as that part is not disputed. The main dispute is in their area if Jammu and Kashmir where people burn indian flag and raise Pakistani flag. Can you please report his edits as shown below as compared with the version that you added

Hi the user User:Showmethedoor is continously reverting the articles Azad Kashmir to his satisfaction. He wants disputed word in each and every line i guess, nobody denies that it is disputed but it is already present in the article. Here are some of his actions [[5]] Thankyou,Saladin1987 13:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I feel that the dispute being a long-pending one since for the past 68 years, it merits to be brought in and highlighted in the introductory section itself and not as a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmethedoor (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not added my own personal analysis to Wikipedia article on Azad Kashmir. I just added Instrument of Accession with India which is a fact, even as per Wikipedia. It does not violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia in any form. I've provided external link as well from princeton.edu today. Please do not delete or revert the changes. Wikipedia is for related information to be shown to the world that J&K was accesended to India. In fact we need to change the title of the page itself to something more generic, not Azad Kashmir. Thank you. ljinishansl (talk)Jinishans (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You blanket reverted all the edits including my improvements on the earthquake (which I had moved to a section now there's a duplicate of it in the lead). Better to manually resolve edit conflict where there are intermediate edits. So it would make more sense if you revert yourself and then enter your edits by copy pasting from your previous edit manually. Secondly, the new version seems ok except that it asserts J&K as "indian state" instead of Indian administered or controlled. The last agreed upon and neutral version was to keep use the word administered for both J&K and AJK when introducing in such context. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A section specifically devoted to the earthquake could be worthwhile, given the impact it seems to have had on the territory, but most of what is in that paragraph is completely unrelated to the earthquake (info about AJK's economy, random statistics). Jammu and Kashmir is a state of India, but I see what you mean about the wording around the Indian portion. Hopefully this is a little bit better (it's really hard to phrase it in a way that could be seen as biased). IgnorantArmies 12:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you on the earthquake section being a duplicate. IgnorantArmies 12:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already added a section... but you removed it in misunderstanding.. better to keep the section and remove the duplicate from lede and add only this (as I previously did).. "In 2005, Azad Kashmir was hit by the devastating Kashmir earthquake". Earthquake only deserves a one liner in lede but a section in the article is due. The lede and section had the exact same content after your revert.. so removing it from the lede and keeping the section was what I meant. The fix on 'administered' seems much better. The fact whether or not it is a state of India is the whole dispute... is is Indian POV, is not is Pakistani. Disputed but currently controlled by so n so is neutral.--lTopGunl (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Re my removal of "Somaliland" on the list of states with limited recognition, this was in essence a mistake as I had clicked on "State of Somaliland" and with referrence to File:Somalia (orthographic projection).svg. All the same I would be interested in your views as to any proposed distinction between this unrecognised group and groups listed at: List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory. I don't think that, in the context of Star Wars and Che Guavara etc., that "rebel" is derogatory but, in this case, think it is more accurately used. Gregkaye✍♪ 09:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this page. I have always wondered why those most obviously interested have never done it. Perhaps there are no wikipedians who went to Auckland Grammar.Rick570 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems to have been reasonably influential, certainly a very interesting character. Hopefully some day someone here gets a copy of his biography and fills in the gaps. IgnorantArmies 12:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, I was sort of wondering what the fourth instance was :) I'd reckon it's happened a few more times on the subcontinent (and probably elsewhere), but it'd certainly be difficult to track them all down. IgnorantArmies(talk) 05:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:People from Western Australia uncategorised by location[edit]

Re: the barony. Surprising but true. Not original research. Apologies, the link I provided as confirmation to the Adelsvapen - ('Coat of Arms' - which is also published on CD Rom) wasn't the one I meant to provide which offers the full genealogy. (The Adelskalendern, which is the official record of the peerage of Sweden would also have him listed, and that will be available online later this year.) I've rewritten the entry with a reference to a Sydney Morning Herald article that confirms his parents names. That article also notes: "The Swedish Leyonhjelms were aristocracy and he still occasionally gets letters from Europe addressed to the "Right Honourable Baron". However I've softened the mention so it doesn't sound like something out of Chekov - which might raise the hackles of the chips-on-shoulder crew. I've corrected the Adelsvapen link to provide the full genealogy. It's actually a fascinating Australian immigrant story. The Australian branch began with Baron Carl Malcolm. You'll find him at TAB 20. You'll find David's father Bryan at TAB 20A. (n.b. ' friherre' = baron). The family is also listed on the Wikipedia page for Swedish noble families: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_noble_families#Baronial_families_.28Friherrliga_.C3.A4tter.29 Note: the family have changed the spelling of their name. The original name was Leijonhielm, but over the centuries it's been spelt about six different ways. Intriguing how libertarianism has always been popular with aristocrats! Engleham (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Why cant you read what is being posted on Abbotts page? using his own department to provide documents would show you are not bothering to read, this is the major document, will you bother reading or continue the edit war? [1] the document says the renunciation papers do not exist. You say that is a conspiracy theory, well it is one backed up by his own department. stop your petty party political edit wars. Arcobelina (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm loving your work on the WA state ministries - a set of sorely needed articles that I'd never gotten around to doing, and that you're doing a better job of than I could have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've just been working off of our articles on the federal government ministers (kudos to whoever did them), and I think I've got it down to a fine science now. Not sure why WA needs 45 separate ministerial portfolios, though. Almost all of the WA info is already in list form online, which always helps – hopefully the other state parliamentary libraries do something similar in future. I'd like to fill the articles out a bit at some stage, too, but I think just listing the ministers is better than nothing. IgnorantArmies(talk) 12:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello IgnorantArmies. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of United States of Australia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#R3 applies only to recently-created redirects.

The reason is that if a redirect has been in place for some time, there may be external links to it which would be broken if it were deleted. If you think an older redirect should be deleted, nominate it at WP:Redirects for discussion, but first read WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect?. Even if a redirect is misleading, it may still be useful if it directs the reader to an article where there is relevant information, and the usage statistics show nearly 20 hits a day on this one.

It seems that you disagree on me adding an image of pig farming in the pork page, which is per my knowledge, where most of the world's pork comes from. I have started a discussion on the talk page, and I welcome your involvement. Smk65536 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw you moved the above mentioned article back to its current title after it had stood at New Zealand women's national cricket team. To be honest, I have to disagree with your rationale. There is no such sport as "women's cricket", it's just cricket played by women. No rules are changed when women play the game. Furthermore, the standard convention among all sports is to use the format "[country] women's national [sport] team", it's just cricket that had it wrong for a long time. If you don't mind, I'm going to request an uncontroversial move back to New Zealand women's national cricket team so it matches with every other article in Category:National women's cricket teams (and while I'm at it, I'm going to request that the category itself be moved too). – PeeJay 10:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To start with, thanks for going through Category:Under-19 cricket teams – that's been on my to-do list for ages, but I never got around to it. With women's cricket, the rules do change slightly (documented here) – the main changes are a smaller ball and shorter boundaries. I think "women's cricket" is pretty standard terminology, and their administrators have generally been quite eager to keep their game separate from the standard format (at least at the international level) – the Women's Cricket Association and International Women's Cricket Council were, I believe, merged into the ECB and the ICC only very reluctantly. There was a great article about it on Cricinfo a few years back, but I doubt I'll be able to find it again. So, I think all that was the basis for the "[country] national women's cricket team" format (and the reason I moved the New Zealand page back to its original). I'm honestly not that fussed about it, just so long as the format's the same across all the articles. IgnorantArmies(talk) 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Consider me educated! I was aware of the shorter boundaries, but I had no idea women's cricket used a smaller ball. I'm happy with the term "women's cricket", but I also think consistency across the whole of Wikipedia is important, so it makes sense to go for "[country] women's national cricket team". – PeeJay 19:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)